
Class. 
Book. 



LETTER OF HON. R, J. WALKER, 

> \ 

IN FAVOR OF THE 

REELECTION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 

LONDON, SEPT. 30, 1864. 



TriE succession of days and years and 
centuries is noted 'in calendars; but it 
is great events, constituting historical 
epochs, that mark the progress and des- 
tiny of our race. Decisive battles, vast 
reforms, civil or religious, great scien- 
tific discoveries or mechanical inven- 
tions, dynastic changes, political revolu- 
tions, the union or dismemberment of 
states, the birth or death of republics, 
the rise or fall of empires — those are 
the deep notches in the groove of time, 
the mighty landmarks in the pathway 
of humanity. It is the fate of the 
American Union, involving the liberty 
of our country and mankind, that is to 
be decided in our approaching Presiden- 
tial election. How paltry are all party 
questions in tee presence of an issue so 
transcendent as this ! How dare we 
mingle old party names or conflicts 
with such a question, when the life of 
the Union is trembling in the balance! 
The maintenance of the Union is the 
one majestic question, and the Union 
■party, in name, and in fact, is the only 
one that should exist, until this great 
issue is decided. Then, when the Union 
is rescued from present and future peril, 



vc may exhume the past, use old party 

until then ff© Unfold a party banc 
reviye old party prejudices, is treason 
to our country and mankind. ! 

publicans alone. 
as separate par: : died against 

each other, that e..n save the 1 
During this struggle fof the Union, wo 
do n<>i bear of Dera ■ Republican 

admirals or generals, divisions i 
ments; no, we have only one 
Union army, discarding all party names, 
or symbols, and fighting only for and 
under the banner of the Union. U is 
then a grave objection to the CI 

[Ian Oonve . in such a 

crisis as this, it summoned only a Demo- 
cratic Convention, and appealed only 
to the Demorratic party to save t! 
ernment. As well might . 
only a Democratic army t i 
battles of our country, as oondn I 
an election as this under any old 
name and banner. Thousands i >f Repub 
lioans as well as Democrat . I 
under the banner of the I 
now the battles of their country. Thou- 
sands of Republican as well as Demo-. 



but answer the foul accusation by your 
votes in the approaching Presidential 
election. 

The Chicago McClellan Convention 
says that the war is a failure, and that 
therefore there must be an armistice and 
a cessation of hostilities. Will not your 
answer at the polls be this: 'It is a 
foul and treasonable falsehood? ' 

And is this war for the Union indeed 
a failure? Let our many and well- 
fought battles upon the ocean and the 
land answer the question. Let a coun- 
try nearly as large as half of Europe, 
taken from the rebels since the war 
commenced, respond. Let Shiloh, and 
Donaldson, and Gettysburg and Yieks- 
burg, and Port Hudson, and New 
Orleans, and the Mississippi from its 
source to its mouth, answer. Why, this 
wretched calumny had scarcely been 
uttered by the McClellan Convention, 
when Sherman, the great commander, 
and his army had washed out the accu- 
sation in the blood of the vanquished, 
and unfolded, our banner at Atlanta, the 
grand military strategic centre of Geor- 
gia, never to be recalled. And while 
the shouts of the great victory in Geor- 
gia were still sounding in our ears, 
Oppequan responded to the thunders of 
Atlanta, and the heroic Sheridan, after 
a decided victory, was driving the rebel 
army from the valley of Virginia. Was 
Sherman's campaign from Memphis and 
Nashville to Chattanooga, and from 
Chattanooga to Atlanta, a failure ? Why, 
that campaign is unsurpassed in history. 
Was Grant's Potomac advance a failure ? 
What, the hero of the great campaign 
of the West, terminating with the cap- 
ture of Vicksburg and its garrison, 
not know, or do his duty! Was the 
victory of the Wilderness a failure, or 
the destruction in successive battles of 
one third of Lee's army, together with 
the seizure of the great Weld on Railroad, 
or the repulse there of the Confederate 
attack — were these failures ? Recollect, 
Grant was Lieutenant-General, subor- 
dinate only to the President and Secre- 
tary of War, in planning the whole 



campaign, and, while too much credit 
cannot be given to the heroic Sherman 
and noble Sheridan, and their gallant 
armies, yet, it must be remembered, 
that their great victories and strategic 
military movements are but a part of 
Grant's plan — concentrating the three 
armies of the Potomac, the Shenandoah, 
and the West, so as to seize and hold 
all the roads connecting with Richmond, 
and capture the Confederate army and 
government. 

And now as to our navy. Were the 
gallant deeds of Admiral Porter at 
Vicksburg, on the Mississippi River, the 
Arkansas, and the Red River, failures? 
Were the destruction of the forts protect- 
ing New Orleans and the capture of that 
city by the illustrious Farragut failures ? 
Were the capture or destruction by 
that gallant man, aided by General Gran- 
ger, of the forts commanding the Bay of 
Mobile, together with the occupation of 
its harbor by our fleet — and the destruc- 
tion there of the Confederate navy 
— were these fduures ? Were the cap- 
ture of the forts-ilhd city of Pensacola, 
of all the Florida forts, and the fortifica- 
tions commanding Savannah— the de- 
feat of the Merrimac and Tennessee — 
the destruction of the Alabama — the 
capture of Port Royal, and of the forts 
which commanded it — were these fail- 
ures ? No ; the war is not a failure. 
It is a glorious and trancendent success. 
Already the whole Southern and South- 
western coast is'ours. The whole of the 
Mississippi is ours, with far more than 
a thousand miles of its course from 
Columbus to its mouth, and even to a 
considerable extent up the Mississippi 
and Missouri, which had been once in 
the hands of the enemy. Chesapeake 
Bay is ours, and all its tributaries, from 
the Potomac to the James River. The 
whole coast of North and South Caro- 
lina, of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, 
Louisiana, and Texas, with vast por- 
tions of the interior, including many im- 
pregnable positions, is ours. Tennessee, 
one of the seceded States, is now 
wholly ours. Kentucky is loyal. Mis- 



5 



souri is ours, and has abolished Sla- 
very. Maryland is ours, and has, 1 
believe, uprooted Slavery also. Our 
whole Territorial domain, greater in 
extent than one half of Europe (and 
about Slavery in which this contest 
began), is now wholly ours. Not a 
rebel flag floats within its limits. When 
before were such mighty conquests 
achieved within so short a period? 
Why, the conquests of Alexander, of 
Caasar and Napoleon covered no such 
extent of territory. And, ' we take no 
steps backward/ Where our flag now 
is once unfolded in any part of rebel- 
dom, there it continues to float, and will 
float forever. What are we to negotiate 
about? Is it as to giving up the Mis- 
sissippi and its tributaries, together 
with New Orleans, Vicksbnrg, and 
Tennessee? Is West Virginia, which 
has been admitted as a new Free Stale, 
to be surrendered? Are Fortress Mon- 
roe and the Chesapeake to be abandon- 
ed? Is the rebel flag-to float at Alex- 
andria, and on the heights of Arling- 
ton ; and are rebel cannon to be planted 
there, in sight of and to command the 
very capital of the Union? Arc we to 
insult loyal Kentucky, Missouri, Mary- 
land, and Delaware, by negotiating 
about them? Are we to give baci 
Western to Eastern Virginia ? Where 
is the line of division to be run, and 
what armies would be strong enough 
to maintain peace upon the border ? 
What portion of the mighty Territories 
uniting us with the Pacific are to be 
surrendered? Are we to turn over to 
the cruel despotism of their bloody and 
relentless masters, the millions of loyal 
people of the South, to whom we have 
given the most sacred pledge of trie 
protection of the Union? And, last of 
all, are the two millions of slaves, as 
Jefferson Davis complains, who have 
been emancipated by the constitutional 
war proclamation of President Lincoln, 
are they to be remanded to Slavery, 
including the thousands who have so 
gallantly fought in our defence ? And 
as to Slavery, or what, if any, may be 



left of it, when the war i< Over, are we 
to abandon the unquestionable right to 
abolish it, as Mr. Lincoln and his friends 
propose, by a constitutional a 
merit? Is Jefferson Davis to conic back 
again as Senator from Mississippi .' An- 
the traitors Cobb and Thompson to 
their places in the Meridian Cabinet? 
Is Toombs, of Georgia, (as lie bi 
to call the roll of his slaves on th< 
ton Common? Slavery, we know, was 
tin- sole cause of the war. It v. . - 
Slaverythat fired the 'first gun at Sum- 
ter, and demanded to rule or ruin the 
country. It was in the name of Slavery 
that the South seceded; and it was to 
extend and perpetuate Slavery, as u 
blessed and divine institution, that they 
avowedly framed the Confederate con- 
stitution. In the debates of Co 
of 1860-61, in the proceedings of the 
Committee of 18.3:5, in the acts of the 
Peaci Congress, in the various 
sion ordinances, by the very terms of 
the Confederate constitution, Slavery 
was the sole cause of this war upon the 
Government. Slavery was and is our 
great enemy, and shall we not 3 
it? Slavery was the sole cause of the 
war, and shall it not be era'dii 
When the patient calls for a physician*, 
he seeks for the source of the i 
so as not merely t.- alleviate p 
pain, but to remove the cause, and pre- 
vent relapses or successive attacks. I*' 
hi deals only with palliatives, to as 
for a brief period the present, suffering, 
when he can remove the cause, and re- 
store the patient to permanent and per- 
fect health, he is but a quack and an 
impostor. 

The party supporting Mr. Lincoln is 
composed of men of all the old parties. 
Its candidate for the Presidi n > is from 
the North, and belpriged to ijh 
Republican party. Its candidate for the 
Vice Presidency, a brave, loyal. Union- 
loving man. is from the South, ami be- 
longed (like myself) to the old Dm ■ 
cratie party. But the BaMrrior 
vention, in the spirit of true nationality 
and patriotism, discarded all old party 



names or issues. It acted only in the 
name of the Union, and as one great 
Union party, and asked all patriots, 
dismissing for the present all old party 
names or issues, to unite with it for the 
salvation of the Union. 

My first objection, then, to the organi- 
zation against Mr. Lincoln is, that it is 
a mere party organization, arrayed un- 
der an old party name, and marching 
under an old party banner. In the 
midst of a great contest like this, when 
all old party names and prejudices 
should be forgotten, and when Demo- 
crats and Republicans should be united 
as brethren in the one grand effort to 
suppress the rebellion, the Chicago 
McClellan Convention reopens old party 
strifes, renews old party issues, and, 
denouncing Republicans, assumes the 
name and professes to represent the 
Democratic party. It was the banner 
of the Union that was raised by the 
Convention at Baltimore, and the sal- 
vation of the Union, with its rescue 
from present and future perils, the sup- 
pression of the rebellion, with the re- 
moval of the cause, constituted the only 
issues presented by that Convention to 
the whole of the loyal States of all 
parties. 

It was far otherwise at Chicago. It 
was a mere assemblage of partisans, 
some for, and some against the Union, 
in the search of power and emoluments. 
It was the flag of the Union that was 
given to the breeze at Baltimore. It was 
the flag' of a party that was unfolded 
at Chicago. ' For the Union ' was 
written on the flag of the one — l For 
the Democratic party ' was inscribed 
on the standard of the other. It was 
said that the Baltimore Convention lias 
made the abolition of Slavery one of its 
issues ; but, as well might it be objected 
that it had made the prosecution of the 
war, or the maintenance of the army 
or navy, part of its creed. The Eman- 
cipation Proclamation of the President 
had its whole constitutional force as a 
war measure to save the Union, and, 
as such, it was adopted by Mr. Lin- 



coln as ex-officio ' commander-in-chief 
of the army and navy of the United 
States.' That it was, as a war meas- 
ure, perfectly constitutional, I have 
never doubted, and so declared in an 
article published at the time hi The Con- 
tinental Magazine. It is the duty of 
all persons, not aliens, to unite with the 
President in suppressing a rebellion. 
Slaves, in the relation which they occupy 
to the National Government under the 
Federal Constitution, are i persons.' 1 As 
persons, they are thrice named in the 
Constitution, and by no other name 
whatever. Especially, under the clause 
providing for direct taxation, they are 
enumerated as persons, not valued as 
property. The term 'person' is used 
more frequently in the Constitution 
than any other, and it is applied ex- 
pressly to slaves, and to the whole 
people of the United States, including 
the President and Vice President, who 
are designated therein as persons. This 
very question, whether slaves are per- 
sons or proper($yunder the Constitution, 
arose in the great case of Groves vs. 
Slaughter, when, in 1841 (with a single 
dissenting opinion, that of Judge Bald- 
win), after the fullest argument on both 
sides, it was unanimously decided by 
the Supreme Court of the United States 
that slaves, in the relation which they 
hold to the National Government under 
theFederalConstitution, are persons only, 
and not property. Were it otherwise, 
Massachusetts could not forbid the in- 
troduction of slaves from the South for 
sale there as merchandise ; for Massa- 
chusetts could not prohibit the intro- 
duction of the cotton, or any property 
of the South for sale as merchandise 
within her limits, for that would have 
been a prohibition of the exports from 
State to State, whicli is forbidden by 
the Federal Constitution. My own 
elaborate argument before the Court, 
as one' of the counsel in that case, will 
be found in the appendix to the first 
edition of the 15th volume of Peters's 
Reports. As persons, the President has 
a right to call for the aid of all residing 



in the United States, except aliens, to 
suppress the rebellion. He has a right 
to call for the services of the loyal or 
rebel masters for such a purpose, as 
well as for the service of their slaves. 

It cannot be denied, that the masters, 
whether rebel or loyal, may be called 
and even forced by conscription into 
the army to suppress the rebellion. 
Would it not then be strange if the 
master could exempt his slaves from 
similar services ? The only right of the 
master recognized by the Constitution, 
is to the ' service or labor ' of his slaves. 
But he has a right equally strong to his 
own service or labor ; yet both must 
yield to the paramount right of the 
Government to the services of both or 
either to suppress the rebellion. There 
is not a single word in the Federal Con- 
stitution which, either by inference or 
express declaration, exempts slaves, 
more than any other persons, from the 
call of the Federal Government to aid 
in suppressing a rebellion. Such is 
the construction giyeB by the South to 
the so-called Confederate constitution, 
which is much more stringent than ours 
in that respect, for it recognizes slaves 
as property ; yet, the rebel authorities, 
the rebel congress and government, 
force slaves, even by conscription, to 
perform military duty — to dig the 
trenches — to make the earthworks — to 
erect the barracks and arsenals — to 
help to make the cannon, small arms, 
and powder, and vessels of war — to con- 
struct the fortifications — to transport 
the provisions, munitions, and cannon 
for their armies, together with the tents 
and military equipage — to raise the food 
indispensable for the support of their 
military forces — and, of course, they 
would, if they dare, put arms in their 
hands to meet us on the battle field. 
It is clear, then, not as a confiscation 
of property (which is also constitutional 
under certain circumstances), but as 
persons, that we have a right to the ser- 
vice of the slaves as well as of their 
masters to suppress the rebellion. But 
•* is only by emancipation (with com- 



pensation for loss of their services by 
loyal men) that the slaves can be called 
into our army, and used to suppress the 
rebellion. A call by the President for 
the slaves to serve in our armies, to risk 
their lives and shed their blood for the 
Union, accompanied by the declaration 
that they were still slaves, and, upon 
the termination of the war, such as sur- 
vived would be restored to their mas- 
ters, with whom their wives and chil- 
dren must still remain in bondage, 
would be an atrocious crime, as well as 
the climax of all absurdities. No: it 
is only by emancipation that the ser- 
vices of the slaves can or ought to be 
obtained for the suppression of the 
rebellion. The Emancipation Proclama- 
tion then of the President, with com- 
pensation to loyal masters, is most clear- 
ly constitutional during the continuance 
of the war, and as a war measure to 
suppress the rebellion and save the 
Union, and such must be the decision of 
the Supreme Court of the United States, 
to which. tribunal the President has 
properly submitted the final arbitra- 
ment of the constitutional question. It 
is true, when the rebellion is crushed, 
the President can issue no new emanci- 
pation proclamation. But neither can 
he then recall or modify the one already 
issued; and if he had the power to 
recall the proclamation, it would be an 
act of perfidy unparalleled in the history 
of the world. The nation would be so 
utterly disgraced by such bad faith as 
would be involved in the revocation of 
the Emancipation Proclamation, as to 
earn the contempt of all honest and 
honorable men, and the loss of sympa- 
thy of the industrial classes and work- 
ing men of Europe, whose rulers would 
then no longer fear to recognize or aid 
the South. It was the magnificent up- 
rising of the working classes of England 
in favor of the Union, that alone saved 
both countries from a bloody and disas- 
trous war. 

The Emancipation Proclamation be- 
ing, as we have seen, clearly constitu- 
tional, as a war measure, w r ith a view 



8 



to save the Union, was it, as such, wise 
and expedient? We have seen that the 
rebel South, even by conscription, when 
necessary, used slaves for military pur- 
poses, and those not used directly in 
that way are required to raise bread- 
stuffs and provisions (instead of cotton), 
to supply the Confederate army. In- 
deed the debates of Congress for many 
years past, will show that the South 
boasted, not vainly, of their great mili- 
tary strength, because they declared 
that, while the slaves would be used in 
raising provisions to supply their forces, 
the whole white population capable of 
bearing arms could then be called into 
the field. This constituted, as they de- 
clared, their great military strength. 
And is it not then a most important 
war measure, to deprive them of that 
all-powerful and efficient weapon : 
which, we have seen, can only be done 
by emancipation? Now, let us suppose 
that while we refuse the use of the 
colored race, whether bond or free, in 
aid of the war, they are used for that 
purpose by the South, what would be 
the result? By the census of 1860, the 
whole population of the United States 
was 31,445,080, of which there were 
white, 26,975,575; free colored, 487,- 
996 ; slaves, 3,953,760; total, of colored, 
4,441,756, of which there were in the 
seceded States 3,653,110, and in the 
loyal States, 788,446. Add the whites 
in the seceded States, 5,449,463, *\vould 
thus make the whole population of 
those States, by the census of 1860, 
9,102,573. In the loyal States, the 
whole population was 22,342,507; of 
which 21,553,861 were white, and 788,- 
646 colored. Now then, if the colored 
race, as we have seen, in the seceding 
States, are used for war purposes by 
them and not by us, the relative number 
or opposing forces would be as fol- 
lows: Loyal States, 21,553,861 ; seceded 
States, 9,102,573; difference in favor of 
the Loyal States, 12,451,288. Now, to 
begin the process, add to the whites in 
the Loyal States the free colored, 
and the total number is 22,342,507; 



seceded States, 9,102,573 ; differ- 
ence in favor of the Loyal States, 
13,239,934. Continuing the process, if 
we deduct by the emancipation policy 
the whole colored population of the 
seceded States, the result would be, 
Loyal States, 22,342,507 ; seceded 
States, 5,449,463. But if, concluding 
the process, by the emancipation policy 
we not only deduct the colored race 
from the aid of the South, but add it in 
aid of the Loyal States, the result 
would be, Loyal States, 25,995,617; 
seceded States, 5.449,463 ; difference in 
favor of Loyal States, 20,456,154. Thus 
the policy opposed to emancipation and 
to the use of the colored race' by us in 
the war, makes the difference in our 
favor as against the South only 12,451,- 
288, whereas the diiference in our favor 
by the emancipation policy of the Presi- 
dent is 20,546,154. Deduct from this 
the above 12,451,288; final difference, 
8,094,866. Thus we see that, by the Pres- 
ident's policy, there is, in effect, a gain to 
the Loyal States equivalent to more than 
eight millions o$ J people, more than 
200,000 of whom are already soldiers 
in the Union army, all of whom must 
be disbanded if Mr. Lincoln's policy wa9 
erroneous. Will any say that a policy 
which makes a difference in the relative 
forces of the two contending parties of 
more than eight millions of people in 
favor of the North, and which has 
already increased our army 200,000, is 
not a most important war measure, aid- 
ing us to suppress the rebellion and 
save the Government? and, therefore, 
it is a policy eminently calculated to 
preserve and perpetuate the Union. 
Indeed, it is this measure which ren- 
ders the maintenance of the Union cer- 
tain, and, without it, the Union is sub- 
jected to great peril. 

As, then, the emancipation policy of 
the President is not only wise, benefi- 
cent, and constitutional, but renders cer- 
tain the preservation of the Union, 
while that of his opponents subjects it 
to imminent peril, I go for the reelec- 
tion of Mr. Lincoln. I go for him as a 






9 



Union man, and because Lis emanci- 
pation policy will certainly save the 
Union ; and I go against his opponent, 
because, however loyal he may be, and 
however sincere his desire to save the 
Union, practically he is a disunionist, 
because, independent of tho Chicago 
McClellan platform, his anti-emancipa- 
tion and anti-negro policy subjects the 
Union to imminent peril. Now, with 
me, in this, as in all preceding elections, 
the preservation and perpetuation of 
the Union constituted the great trans- 
cendent question, involving the liberty 
of our country and mankind, and I can 
give no vote which subjects it to the 
slightest peril. Save the Union, and all 
else will be added in time (including the 
ultimate downfall of Slavery, which I 
predicted and advocated in January, 
1844), has been the doctrine of my life. 
To that doctrine I still adhere, but sup- 
port the President's emancipation policy 
now, because it is the most efficient, if 
not the only means of saving and per- 
petuating the Union. I opposed eman- 
cipation when it was unconstitutional as 
& peace measure, and because I knew it 
would cause civil war, invite foreign 
intervention, and endanger tho Union. 
I support emancipation now, because it 
is constitutional, greatly diminishes the 
danger of foreign intervention, and in- 
sures the maintenance and perpetui- 
ty of the Union. I supported Judge 
Douglas and opposed the election of 
Mr. Lincoln in I860, because I believed 
it would imperil the Union. While 
always denying that his election would 
justify disunion, I feared that the rebel- 
lion would be the result. In voting 
against Mr. Lincoln in 1860, I did so to 
save the Union from peril. In voting 
for him now, it is to suppress the re- 
bellion and maintain the Union. It is 
not for Mr. Lincoln as a man (however 
worthy he may be), that I now vote — 
I vote for principles — I vote for the 
Union — and in supporting him, I vote 
for the best, if not the only means to 
maintain and perpetuate the Union. 
But there is another principle of vital 



importance involved in this election. 
The Smith, under the banner of Slavery, 
proceeded to secede from the I nion, 
immedSatelyiafter the result ofthe Pres- 
idential election of 1860 was made 
known, South Carolina seceded in 
December, I860. Mississippi followed 
early in January, 1861, and the Cotton 
States all followed during that and the 
succeeding month of February. Now, 
Mi-. Lincoln was not and could not bo 
inaugurated as President until March, 
1861. The South did not and would 
not wait for his inaugural address of 
that date to know, under the new con- 
dition of affairs, what would ho tho 
policy of his Administration. They did 
not and would not wait for any meas- 
ures of his Administration, much less 
any act of the Government or of Con- 
gress, but proceeded to secede merely 
because Mr. Lincoln had been constitu- 
tionally elected to the Presidency by 
the people of the United States. Such 
an act was an overthrow of the great 
fundamental principle of all free gov- 
ernment, namely, that the majority 
shall govern under the forms of tho 
Constitution. It was an attack upon 
the right of suffrage, an assault upon 
the ballot box and the great principle of 
an elective President, as provided in 
our Constitution, and which lies at tho 
very basis of free institutions. That 
principle is the vital element of our ex- 
istence. It is ' the casing air ' of liber- 
ty. Take it away, and freedom in- 
stantly expires. The right of suffrage is 
the great American right of every citi- 
zen, rich or poor, humble or exalted. 
It is the great palladium of our liberty. 
It is a Government, like a mighty pyra- 
mid, reposing on its broad and immova- 
ble base, the will and affections of tho 
people. It is the people's Government, 
and therefore the people maintain it, 
and with us two millions of volunteers 
have rushed to its support. Therefore, 
while it is the best Government in 
peace, it is the strongest in war. But se- 
cession because of I the election of a 
President, is not only war upon the 



10 



Union, but war upon the elective fran- 
chise, the great fundamental principle 
of free government, and without 
which, it is but a fleeting shadow. 
Democrats — people of all parties — my 
countrymen, while you are asked now 
by the Chicago Convention to vote 
against Air. Lincoln, you would nullify 
by that very vote the right of suffrage, 
because, what is that suffrage worth, 
what Is your vote but an empty form, if 
it may not elect your President? But 
if, because the minority who have voted 
against you,dissatisfied with your choice, 
can rebel, make war upon you, because 
you thus voted, and set up another 
President for that minority by force of 
arms, what is that but to say that the 
majority shall not rule ; that the right 
of suffrage shall be nullified ; that the 
Constitution, under which that vote 
was given, shall be overthrown? This 
is what the rebellion has done in at- 
tempting to destroy the Eepublic, 
merely because of the election of Mr. 
Lincoln. This arrogant and insolent 
slave-holding oligarchy would not even 
wait to hear what the President of your 
choice would say. They treated the 
President of your choice, and therefore 
they treated you and the Constitution 
under which you acted, with scorn and 
defiance. So long as you would act 
with them, so long as the Northern par- 
asites would adhere to the Southern 
upas tree of Slavery, so long as the 
' mudsills ' of the North, as they arro- 
gantly called you, would obey the orders 
of their Southern masters, so long as you 
would be their slaves, they would per- 
mit the President to be inaugurated. 
But so soon as you elected a President 
against their dictation, then your suffra- 
ges should be nullified by the rebellion 
of a minority against the majority. What 
is this but to say, that the majority 
shall not elect a President, and thus 
render the right of suffrage an empty 
form, striking at the fundamental prin- 
ciple of free government, and substitu- 
ting the bayonets of the minority for the 
lalloti of the majority of the people? 



Freemen of America, is it possible that 
by voting against Mr. Lincoln now 
because of the Southern rebellion, 
you will thus declare that the election 
of a President by the people is not to be 
maintained, but that his reelection is to 
be defeated, and that his authority, as 
your President and as your representa- 
tive, is therefore never to extend over 
the whole United States, because a re- 
bellious minority oppose it by force of 
arms ? This is one of the transcendent 
issues involved in this contest. It is in 
fact the great question whether the ma- 
jority shall rule or the minority — > 
whether self-government is an unreal 
mockery, or whether it is indeed a God- 
given right of man, born in the image of 
his Maker. You voted that Mr. Lincoln 
should be President of the whole United 
States. That was your decision at the 
ballot box. Has it been obeyed? No: 
an arrogant slave-holding minority has 
rebelled against it, and, within the boun- 
daries of the area occupied by that mi- 
nority, has suppressed your election by 
the bayonet, and substituted Jefferson 
Davis, one of the rebel leaders, in place 
of Abraham Lincoln. "Within the limits 
of that rebellion, the power, under the 
Constitution, which you devolved upon 
Abraham Lincoln, has been nullified by 
force of arms, and now, if you abandon 
the war, or defeat his reelection, your 
choice will have been nullified, and he 
never will have exercised throughout 
the United States the power given to 
him by your suffrages under the Consti- 
tution. Now the party in the North 
thus acquiescing in this destruction of 
the right of suffrage, dares to assume 
the sacred name of Democracy, which 
you know is but Anglicized Greek, 
meaning the power of the people.- Shade 
of the immortal Jackson! the father 
and founder of the Democratic party, 
burst the cerements of the Hermitage, 
and blast with the thunders of New Or- 
leans the wretched traitors who thus 
dare to profane the sacred name under 
which you were chosen President of the 
United States. 



11 



But there is another grave objection 
to the McClellan platform adopted at 
Chicago. It is its intentional ambiguity ; 
The Convention was composed of 
unionists and disunionists, of peace and 
war Democrats, as they style them- 
selves, and the platform was adapted to 
suit the views of both these parties in 
and out of the Convention. It was a 
platform upon which the temple of Ja- 
nus was to be closed, but with side 
doors at either extremity, into one of 
which the peace men with their olive 
branches should enter, and the war 
men in full military array in the other, 
and the lion and the lamb meet 
together in the centre in cordial agree- 
ment. But, it appears that the war 
men in this case were only asses in 
lions' skins, for in the compromise be- 
tween antagonistic principles and candi- 
dates, the peace men got far the better 
of the bargain. "While there were some 
vague and glittering generalities in favor 
of the Union, they were connected with 
conditions which rendered the destruc- 
tion of the Union certain, namely, an 
armistice and cessation of hostilities, ac- 
companied by the false and flagitious 
declaration, calculated to encourage the 
enemies of our country at home and 
abroad, namely, that the war to suppress 
the rebellion was a failure. Remember, 
soldiers, that the McClellan platform 
declares that your battles are failures ; 
that your blood has been shed iu vain ; 
that your arms can never crush the re- 
bellion ; that you are inferior in courage 
to the slave-holding rebels ; that you 
must admit your defeat, throw down 
your muskets, return in disgrace to your 
homes, disband the army, lay up the 
navy, recall Generals Grant, Sherman, 
Sheridan, Meade, and Gilmore, and Ad- 
mirals Farragut, Porter, Dupont, Davis, 
and Winslow, and leave it to the civil- 
ians of Chicago, Vallandighu.ni, Har- 
ris, Long, Pendleton, and others, to 
negotiate a peace. 

Now what is an armistice ? It is de- 
fined to be a suspension of the war for 
a limited period. There may be condi- 



tions added, but none are named in the 
McClellan Chicago platform, of course, 
then, it means a cessation of hostilities 
by land and sea. Indeed, the platform 
is weaker than this, for it proposes di- 
rectly a 'cessation of hostilities,' not 
by land only, or by sea only, but, of 
course, by both, as the words arc general. 
Now then, the blockade of the rebel 
ports, and the capture or destruction 
of blockade runners and their car , 
is war upon the ocean. This blockade, 
then, is to be abandoned during the 
armistice, for there is to be a c< 
of hostilities upon the ocean and the 
land. 

During this interval of peace, when 
there is to be no blockade of the South- 
ern ports, what is to follow ? By their 
own accounts and estimates, the Con- 
federates have within their limits, in 
cotton (at present prices), tobacco, and 
naval stores, a value exceeding one bil- 
lion of dollars in gold. Now then, so 
soon as the armistice was agreed upon, 
the war upon the ocean, including the 
blockade, having ceased, the whole of 
this cotton, tobacco, and naval stores, 
would be shipped to Europe, or partly 
to Nassau, on the way to Europe, and 
this enormous amount realized by the 
Confederate government in gold. Wo 
know what tremendous disasters have 
been produced by the cotton famine in 
England, France, and other countries. 
Now, the lirst effect of such shipments 
would be the total ruin of all our man- 
ufactures of cotton and other textile 
fabrics. But another still more serious 
result would follow. We know that 
Louis Napoleon is the bitter enemy of 
the Union ; we know that lie has again 
and again declared that we could not 
suppress the rebellion ; that he has 
earnestly thrice endeavored to persuade 
the British Government to unite with 
him in acknowledging the independence 
of the South — twice through efforts 
made directly upon the British Cabi- 
net, and once through Eoebuck and 
Lindsay, members of the House of Com- 
mons, to induce it by a parliamentary 



12 



vote to compel the British Ministry to 
unite with the Emperor in acknowl- 
edging the independence of the South. 
That Louis Napoleon is our bitter ene- 
my, is proved also by the French- 
Mexican war, in which England, and 
even Spain, separated from him. It is 
proved also by the diplomatic corre- 
spondence of Jefferson Davis, and by 
his friendly and approving recognition 
of the establishment of the French 
Imperial Government in Mexico. It is 
further proved by Louis Napoleon's 
own letter, in which he declared, that 
one of the objects of the Mexican war 
was the establishment of the equilib- 
rium of the Latin race upon the 
American continent. It is further 
demonstrated by the proceedings of 
the French in Mexico, and especially re- 
cently at Matamoras, in the mutual aid 
given and received by the French and 
Confederate forces. Now, what is the 
meaning of establishing the equilibrium 
of the Latin race on the '■American 
continent ' t In the first place, it meaiis 
European miliitary intervention ; in the 
second place, it means to embrace not 
only Mexico, but the whole Latin race 
on the American continent. By the 
Latin race is included all Spanish Amer- 
ica. It means, then, in the future, if 
our Government is overthrown, that 
all Spanish America, from the northern 
boundary of Mexico to Cape Horn, is to 
be consolidated into one great Power 
under imperial sway. It means to in- 
clude in this vast empire the command 
of the Isthmus of Tehauntepec, the route 
by Central America (about which Louis 
Napoleon has written so much), by Hon- 
duras and Chiriqni, but more especially 
the Panama, as also the Atrato routes. 
In the great future, whoever com- 
mands these routes, especially together 
with that of the Isthmus of Suez, which 
I visited a few months since, and 
which Louis Napoleon has nearly com- 
pleted, will command the commerce of 
the world, and, as a consequence, ulti- 
mately control the institutions of the 
world. Such are the tremendous prob- 



lems teeming in the brain of Napoleon 
the Third, and all, as he believes, depend- 
ing upon the destruction of the Ameri- 
can Union. I speak of what I know 
from a residence now of nearly two 
years in Europe. Thus it is that Louis 
Napoleon intends to bring us within 
the centrifugal gravitation of the Eu- 
ropean balance of power. This won- 
derful man proposes to extend this 
system from the old continents to the 
new, embracing both, and thus hold in 
his grasp the equilibrium — the balance 
of power of the world. We may well 
imagine what that equilibrium will be 
when Napoleon the Third shall hold 
the balance in his hands. Already he 
has considerable possessions (insular 
and continental) in North and South 
America, and Mexico, under Maximil- 
ian, is substantially a French depend- 
ency. He holds Algiers. He is colo- 
nizing Egypt (as I myself saw this 
year) by his railroads and canals. He 
has seized and colonized Cochin China 
and Annam. He has made Italy a de- 
pendency on the bayonets of France. 
Now then, under these circumstances, 
when the blockade shall have termi- 
nated, and Jefferson Davis, who is quite 
as ambitious and even more talented 
than Louis Napoleon, shall hold in his 
hand more than a billion of dollars' 
worth of Southern products ready for 
immediate shipment, may he not, and 
will he not say, through his most aide 
and adroit diplomatic representative at 
Paris, ' Recognize the independence of 
the South, and all these products shall 
be shipped for sale in France, and to 
French manufacturers,' and thus enable 
France to crush for the present the 
cotton manufacturers of all the rest of 
the world. It is well known in Paris 
that Mr. Slidell is upon terms of the 
most intimate association with Louis 
Napoleon, and has thoroughly convinced 
him that we cannot suppress the rebel- 
lion. Is it not, then, clear, anxious as 
Nanoleon is for the success of the South, 
that he would, in the event of MeClcl- 
lan's election, at onee recognize South- 



13 



em independence. Indeed, it is the 
boast of the Confederate leaders in Eu- 
rope, since the adoption of the platform 
at Chicago, that, upon the election of 
their candidates, without waiting four 
months for the inauguration in March 
next, Napoleon will at once recognize 
the Confederate government. Indeed, 
I do not doubt, from the circumstantial 
evidence (although I do not know the 
fact), that there is already a secret un- 
derstanding between Jefferson Davis 
and Napoleon the Third to recognize 
the independence of the South upon the 
election of the Chicago candidates. 
Why wait four months, until the ■ 4th of 
March next, when the American peo- 
ple, by indorsing the Chicago platform, 
shall have declared for peace, with the 
additional announcement in that plat- 
form, that the war for the suppression 
of the rebellion has failed ? 

If, indeed, that war has failed, and 
we cannot thus suppress the rebellion, 
it would not only be the right, but, upon 
the principles of international law, the 
duty of every foreign power to acknowl- 
edge Southern independence. Thus is 
it that the Chicago McClellan platform 
invites recognition. What is the mean- 
ing of the recognition of tlie independ- 
ence of the South by France, under such 
circumstances? It means war. It 
means, in the first place, commercial 
treaties stipulating great advantages in 
favor of France, mid perhaps other 
Powers. It means, of course, the over- 
throw of the blockade, so as to carry 
out those treaties. It means conditions 
destructive of our interests, and favora- 
ble to the recognizing Powers. It 
means advantages and discriminations 
in tariffs and tonnage duties, and navi- 
gation privileges, which would exclude 
us from Southern ports, including New 
Orleans and the mouth of the Missis- 
sippi, and deprive us of the markets of 
the South. Such a recognition, thin, 
with its attendant consequences, moans 
war — war not only with France, but 
probably with England and Spain, and 
other Powers. Doubtless, upon the 



election of the Chicago candidates, Na- 
poleotl would again ask the Ministry of 
England to unite with brim in n 
ing the independence of the Sdutb, and 
to participate in the benefits of the pro- 
posed commercial treaties. Who can 
say that England, under the daAgera 
and sacrifices incurred by a refusaL 
would again decline the offer ( 

It is clear, then, that the election of 
the Chicago candidates involves the 
most imminent peril of war with 
France, if not with England, both acting 
then in alliance with the Confederate 
government. That my country even 
then would accept the contest rather 
than the dishonor and ruin of disunion, 
I do believe ; but who can predict 
the result of such a conflict? My 
countrymen, we are speedily approach- 
ing the very edge of a dark and perilous 
abyss, into which we may be soon 
plunged by the election of the Chicago 
candidates. I implore you not to make 
the dread experiment. You must 
know that there will be no recognition 
of the independence of the South by 
France or England, or any other Powbr, 
if Abraham Lincoln should ben',; 
in November next. The American 
people will then have loudly pro- 
claimed, through the ballot box, that 
they can and will subdue the rebellion 
by force of arm-; and that they will 
continue to negotiate from the mouths 
of our cannon, until the Southern 
armies shall have been dispersed and 
vanquished. Upon the news of the re- 
election of Mr. Lincoln reaohing Europe, 
the Confederate stock, now waiting 
the success of the Chicago candidates, 
will fail, like Lucifer, to rise no more. 
American securities, including those of 
the Federal and loyal State Govern- 
ments, of railroads, and other com- 
panies with real capital, will all be im- 
mensely appreciated. The difference 
in favor of our country, including tho 
rise in greenbacks, would be equivalent 
in a few months to hundreds of millions 
of dollars. Nor is it only our stocks 
that will rise at home and abroad, but 



14 



the national character will be im- 
mensely exalted. The friends of our 
country and liberty in Europe, includ- 
ing the grand mass of the people, will 
echo back the exultant shouts of free- 
dom as they roll on from the Pacific to 
the Mississippi, from the Mississippi to 
the lakes, and, bounding from the glad 
Atlantic, are carried by steam and 
lightning to the shores of Europe. The 
fetters of American Slavery will be 
broken by such a result, and man — im- 
mortal man, of whatever race or color, 
born in the image of his Maker, will 
emerge from chatteldom, and rise to 
the dignity of our common humanity. 

There is one point still remaining of 
vast importance. It is the question of 
Slavery, so far as it yet lingers within 
our borders. Without entering upon 
other aspects of that case, we call atten- 
tion to the proposed amendment for the 
purpose of abolishing Slavery on the 
recommendation of Congress and the 
ratification of three fourths of the 
States, as provided in the Federal Con- 
stitution. This is recommended by Mr. 
Lincoln, and it is a plank in the Balti- 
more platform. It passed the Senate by 
a more than two-thirds vote, but was 
defeated, by the Democrats, by a vote of 
69 to 94, in the House, thus failing to 
receive the two-thirds majority of both 
Houses of Congress as required by the 
Constitution. If, as has been hereto- 
fore shown, Slavery is the great enemy 
of the Union, and was the sole cause of 
the rebellion, why not extirpate the 
cause of the war ? Why not remove 
what may remain of Slavery after the 
war is ended, by the proposed amend- 
ment, as recommended by Mr. Lincoln ? 
This is a war and a Union measure, cal- 
culated to crush the rebellion, to main- 
tain the Union, and to prevent any 
future effort to effect its overthrow. 
This measure, which would settle finally 
and forever the Slavery question, will 
succeed at an early period, if Mr. Lin- 
coln should be reelected. But this 
measure the Democrats oppose, and 
desire to keep oj)en the Slavery question, 



for no object that can be perceived, 
except to renew the old party alliance 
between Slavery South and its Northern 
supporters, with a view to party tri- 
umphs. If General McClellan succeeds, 
Slavery, so far as it still exists, will be 
cherished, maintained, and perpetuated. 
The viper will be warmed into life again, 
and although it might perhaps recoil for 
the present, it would only be to strike 
at some future period with greater force 
and venom at the life of the Bepublic. 
These men tell us they are for the 
Union as it was. Are they for the re- 
vival of such scenes as were perpetrated 
by Brooks in the American Senate ? 
Are they for the Kansas frauds and 
murders and forgeries, including the 
forgery of a constitution? Are they 
for the right of secession, or, while 
they dispute the right of a State to se- 
cede, do they deny with Buchanan and 
Pendleton the right of the Government 
to prevent its secession ? Are they 
against secession, but against coercion 
also? Are they against rebellion, but 
opposed to its overthrow by force ? 
Throughout the South, under the Union 
as it was, there was no freedom of 
speech or of the press, on any question 
connected with Slavery. Are they for 
the sale, under the Union as it was, even 
of free negroes into perpetual bondage ? 
Are they for the denial of the rights of 
Northern citizens throughout the 
South ? Above all, are they for the 
renewal of the African slave trade, as 
notoriously occurred in 1859 (during 
the Administration of Buchanan), at Sa- 
vannah, in Georgia, when the wretched 
victims, just stolen from their native 
homes in Africa, were carried to Savan- 
nah, and there, in defiance of the Fed- 
eral Constitution, openly distributed by 
sale among the boasted chivalry of the 
South ? If the Chicago candidates and 
their party are for these things — if they 
are for the Union as it was in these re- 
spects, I am against them. I am for the 
Union (as clearly intended by the fa- 
thers and founders of the Government) 
as it will be when Slavery (its great, 



15 



and, in fact, its only domestic foe) shall 
have been entirely extinguished. While 
I am for the extinction of Slavery as a 
Union and as a war measure, I am con- 
soled by the reflection that, while it 
will secure the perpetuity of the Union, 
it will vastly increase our wealth and 
power, and advance all our industrial 
and material interests. For several 
years past I have examined this ques- 
tion, and, in various essays, published 
at home, but more especially abroad, 
have proved by official statistics, from 
the censuses of 1850 and 1860, that, 
under the system of free labor and free 
schools which exist in the North, as 
compared with the South, the product 
of the Free States is $217 per capita, and 
that of the slaveholding States §96 per 
capita* Also, that the lands of the South 
are worth $10 per acre, and of the North 
$25 per acre. It was further proved by 
me, in those essays, by the same official 
data, that, exactly in proportion to the 
number of slaves is the decreased pro- 
duction per capita, in the Slave States ; 
that of South Carolina, with 402,406 
slaves and 291,388 whites, being $66 per 
capita, and of Delaware, with 90.589 
whites and 1,798 slaves, being $143 per 
capita; while that of Massachusetts, 
with her sterile soil and severe climate, 
and far inferior natural advantages, was 
$235 per capita ; and the same rule was 
also shown to hold in counties of the 
same Slave States, those counties with 
few slaves always producing more per 
capita than those having many. The 
result was, as shown by the census, 
that if the production of the South in 
1859 had been equal per capita during 
the same year to that of the Free States, 
the additional value of the Southern 
products would have been $1,531,631,- 
000 in 1859, and in the aggregate of the 
decade from 1859 to 1869, $17,873,539,- 
511, exclusive of the addition from the 
annual reinvestment of capital. The 
addition, then, to the value of the pro- 
ducts of the South in a single year, 
caused by the substitution of free for 
slave labor, would be nearly equal to 



our whole present national debt, while 
in the aggregate of the ten years suc- 
ceeding it would be nearly tea times 
greater than the whole national debt, 
thus leaving us far richer after the next 
census, as a consequence of increased 
production, notwithstanding the na- 
tional debt, than if the rebellion had 
never occurred. Thus is it that the 
ways of Providence are justified to 
man, and that Slavery chastises Lts own 
advocates, while its overthrow brings 
increased wealth and safety and hon- 
or and happiness and prosperity to 
the country. While I do not advocate, 
then, the abolition of Slavery in defi- 
ance of the Constitution, because it 
would make us more wealthy and 
powerful, more honored, happy, and 
prosperous, yet I rejoice that in sup- 
porting emancipation, as Mr. Lincoln 
does, as a Union and as a war measure, 
the overthrow of this accursed institu- 
tion will be attended with countless 
benefits to my country and mar 
Suppress the rebellion by the over- 
throw of the Southern armies, and re- 
establish the Government throughout 
all our wide domain upon the broad 
and eternal foundations of freedom, 
truth, and justice, then neither domes- 
tic traitors nor foreign despots will 
ever dash against its adamantine base, 
There it will siand, and stand fo 
the mighty continental breakwater be- 
tween the continents of Asia and of 
Europe, against which the breakers of 
eternal faction, and the waves of des- 
potic power would dash in vain. To 
that home of the oppressed, to that asy- 
lum of genuine and universal freedom, 
millions from the Old World would 
then come, and unite with us in 
strengthening and maintaining a Gov- 
ernment based upon the rights of hu- 
manity, and sustained by the affections 
of the people. While our physical force 
and accumulating wealth would thus 
be rapidly and vastly augmented, our 
moral power would be increased in a 
still grander ratio. Then the cry of ty- 
rants, that self-government is a phan- 



16 



torn, and republics a failure, would 
cease to oppress the listening ear of 
humanity. Then the chains would 
soon fall everywhere from the limbs of 
the slave. Then the reactionary and 
feudal party of Europe, now so loudly 
proclaiming republics a failure, while 
exulting over the anticipated fall of 
the American Union, would retire dis- 
comfited from the contest, while the 
rights of man would be immensely 
promoted, and civilization advance, at 
a single bound, more than in the lapse 
of many centuries. The great liberal 
party of England, headed by those im- 
mortal champions Bright and Cobden, 
would rouse like giants refreshed from 
their slumber, and carry the flag of the 
vote by ballot and extended suffrage 
triumphantly throughout the British 
realm, while Ireland, oppressed Ireland, 
would then receive the fullest justice. 
Then, indeed, all past differences be- 
tween England and America would be 
sunk forever in fraternal concord, and 
the peace of the world be maintained. 
Then Napoleon the Third, who keeps 
an army of 600,000 men as a standing 
menace to Europe and the world, and 
who has just, for the present, and for 
the present only, extinguished in blood 
the freedom of Mexico, must abandon 
his ambitious projects, or shiver his 
diadem \ipon the adamantine rock of 
popular freedom. 

But there are complaints from the 
Bo-called Democratic party that the 
President, and especially the Secretary 
of State, have surrendered the Monroe 
doctrine, and abandoned Mexico to her 
fate. There is no truth in this accusa- 
tion. The President and the Secretary 
of State, as rcjnrds the future, are 
wholly uncommitted on this question, 
unless, indeed, it be for Mexico, by an- 
nouncing that the people of the loyal 
States are unanimously in her favor. I 
say they are uncommitted for the fu- 
ture, and the real objection to their 
course is this : that they have not grat- 
ified the South and its Northern allies, 
by engaging, ere this, in a war v, . .ii 



France, so as to bring her vast forces 
in aid of the Confederate government. 
Indeed, Mr. Seward is cursed everywhere 
by the Confederates and their allies 
throughout Europe for preventing a war, 
at this time, on the Mexican question, 
between France and the United States. 
' There is a time for all things,' and, as 
I have said before, our only question 
now, is the salvation of the Union ; and 
when that is secured, will be the prop- 
er period to consider other subordinate 
questions, foreign or domestic. No 
man can speak with more feeling on 
this question than myself, for it is a 
well-known fact that I earnestly op- 
posed, as a member of the Cabinet of 
Mr. Polk, the Mexican treaty of 1848, 
among other reasons, upon the sugges- 
tion then made by me, that if we aban- 
doned Mexico, it would subject us to 
the danger of European interference 
there (just as it. has occurred) by force 
of arms. That treaty was carried by a 
constitutional majority of only three 
votes, mainly through the instrument- 
ality of Mr. Calhoun, who was against 
the invasion of Mexico, and for ' mas- 
terly inactivity,' resting on the banks 
of the Rio Grande, because he knew (as 
declared in my Texas letter of January, 
1844) ' Slavery never could cross the Rio 
Grande,' and that, as a consequence, all 
of Mexico which we would permanent- 
ly hold, as we ought to have done, 
from Texas to Tehuantepec, would, 
Mexico having abolished Slavery, have 
become Free States. I believed also 
that the permanent occupation and 
annexation of Mexico would have for- 
ever settled all the dangers of the Sla- 
very question, because it would have 
flanked the Slave States of the South- 
west, by many powerful Free States ad- 
jacent on the Southwest, containing 
already seven millions of people, most 
of whom were of the colored race, and 
who would have fought to the last 
against the reestablishnient of Slavery. 
Yet, strong and decided as is my op- 
position to the course of Napoleon on 
the Mexican as well as the Confederate 



17 



question, I believe that the course of 
Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward on this 
question has been marked by great 
courage, devoted patriotism, and the 
highest statesmanship. I am not for 
mingling this or any other question of 
foreign or domestic policy with the 
maintenance of the Union, but have 
only answered the assaults of adversa- 
ries on the Mexican and other subordi- 
nate issues. This, however, I must 
say : that the treaty with Mexico, by 
which we abandoned that country, 
having been ratified, I am opposed to 
any violation of its provisions. While 
I adhere to the opinions expressed at 
the time by me against that treaty ; 
while I am opposed to forcing Mexico 
into our Union, I believe that Napoleon 
the Third, unwittingly, by his invasion, 
has caused Mexico soon to gravitate, 
by the overwhelming wish of her peo- 
ple, into the arms of the great Repub- 
lic. Thus is it that the French invasion 
will have settled forever in our favor the 
question of the American equilibrium. 
I have published the views expressed 
in these letters on consultation with no 
one. They are my own individual 
opinions, and I only am responsible for 
them. It is quite possible that the Ad- 
ministration may differ from some of 
them, but I am just as independent 
of the Administration as they are of 
me. I am not, and never was , a Re- 
publican, and while I have been falsely 
charged in Europe with abandoning 
my free-trade principles, in consequence 
of the constant and earnest support 
given by me to Mr. Lincoln, it must be 
remembered that a majority of his 
Cabinet of 1863 had been Democrats, 
and supported the Tariff of 1846. But 
the Tariff is a very subordinate ques- 
tion, compared with the salvation of 
the Union. Besides, if the Tariff of 
1846 was changed, it was not until the 
2d of March, 1861, and the change was 
caused intentionally, by the previous 
withdrawal of the Senators and Repre- 
sentatives of the seceded States from 
both Houses of Congress. 
2 



I have another answer to this charge. 
I was for the free list of the Tariff of 
1842, as distinctly stated in my first 
annual Treasury report, so as to increase 
our exports, especially of dyed cotton 
goods, thereby producing a correspond- 
ing augmentation of our imports and 
revenue. That portion of the act of 
1846 was defeated by Mr. Calhoun, 
much to my regret, injury, and annoy- 
ance. 

Besides, the South, by its rebellion, 
and by thus forcing on us an enormous 
Federal debt, has rendered impossible 
for many years any other Tariff but that 
which will bring the largest revenue. 
Until this debt is paid, we must have 
the highest Tariff for revenue, and it 
can be so arranged as, while yielding, 
when the Union is restored, at least 
$150,000,000 annually in gold, at the 
same time to furnish all incidental aid 
to American industry that could be de- 
sired. 

I have thus far discussed the ques- 
tion as confined to the contest between 
the respective candidates for the Presi- 
dency of the United States. But let 
those who think of supporting General 
McClellan for the Presidency remem- 
ber that, in sustaining him, they must 
necessarily vote for Mr. Pendleton for 
the Vice Presidency. McClellan and 
Pendleton are the Siamese twins of 
Chicago, inseparable, and all who vote 
for the one, vote at the same time for 
the other. No voter can cast his 
suffrage in this contest, except by 
voting for an electoral ticket, and the 
same electors for General McClellan 
who may be chosen in any State, are 
to vote for Mr. Pendleton for the Vice 
Presidency. In other words, if General 
McClellan is chosen President, ~Mi. 
Pendleton is elected at the same time 
to the Vice Presidency of the United 
States. Now, recollect, that the Vice 
President not only presides over the 
Senate of the United States, and gives 
the casting vote in that body, but that, 
in case of the death of the President, 
the Vice President becomes President 



18 



of the United States. Now, two 
Presidents of the United States, within 
the last twenty-three years, have died 
during their term of office (Harrison 
and Taylor), and one of them within a 
month after his inauguration. In both 
these cases, the Vice Presidents chosen 
on the same electoral ticket with the 
President, reversed the policy of the 
President elect. Tyler reversed the 
policy of Harrison, and Fillmore re- 
versed the policy of Taylor. Why may 
not the same thing again occur, if Mr. 
Pendleton, by the death of General 
McClellan, should succeed him as Pres- 
ident ? This renders an inquiry into 
the course and views of Mr. Pendleton 
a question of vital importance. 

Now, Mr. Pendleton, as his votes and 
speeches show, is against the war for 
the Union, and has declared the coer- 
cion of a seceding rebel State not only 
' impracticable] but ' unconstitutional.' 
His words are, in his speech in Con- 
gress of the 18th January, 1861, after 
most of the Cotton States had seceded : 
' Sir (he then said) the whole scheme 
of coercion is impracticable. It is con- 
trary to the genius and spirit of the 
Constitution.' In accordance with these 
anti-coercion and anti-war views, he 
continued to vote against the prosecu- 
tion of the war, and against all the 
great measures passed for that purpose. 
He further then said, ' If your differ- 
ences are so great that you cannot or 
will not reconcile them, then, gentle- 
men, let the seceding States depart in 
peace ; let them establish their govern- 
ment and empire, and work out their 
destiny according to the wisdom which 
God has given them.' This is exactly 
the doctrine of Jefferson Davis, and of 
all the rebel leaders : ' Let us axone.' 
Let vs alone, while we overthrow the 
Government and dissolve the Union; 
let us alone, while we seize the mouth 
of the Mississippi, and tear down or 
shoot down the flag of the Union from 
every fort of the South. This is their 
language, and the Chicago Convention 
might just as well have nominated 



Jefferson Davis as George H. Pendle- 
ton as their candidate for the Vice 
Presidency of the United States. Such 
a nomination of an avowed disunionist 
shows the true spirit of the Chicago 
Convention, and that all their general 
expressions of devotion to the Union 
were mere empty sounds, calculated to 
secure votes, but utterly false and hyp- 
ocritical ; for, while indulging in these 
pharasaical expressions of love for the 
Union, they nominate, at the same 
time, as their candidate for the Vice 
President, an avowed secessionist and 
disunionist. We have nothing to do 
with the abstract opinions or wishes of 
Mr. Pendleton as regards the Union. 
Jefferson Davis repeatedly, and up to 
the very period of secession, expressed 
quite as much devotion to the old flag 
and to the Union as Mr. Pendleton. 
But Mr. Davis soon became the heat 1 
of the rebellion which Mr. Pendleton 
declares we ought not, and have no 
constitutional power, to suppress by 
force. For all practical purposes, then, 
Mr. Pendleton is just as much a seces- 
sionist and disunionist as Jefferson Da- 
vis. Nor can it be alleged that Mr. 
Pendleton has changed these views. 
On the contrary, as late as this year he 
voted in Congress against the test resolu- 
tion of Green Clay Smith, of Kentucky, 
declaring < that it is the political, civil, 
moral, and sacred duty of the people to 
meet the rebellion, fight it, crush it, 
and forever destroy it.' Now then, the 
Chicago Convention, with a full knowl- 
edge of these votes and speeches, nom- 
inated Mr. Pendleton for the Vice Pres- 
idency, and contingently for the Presi- 
dency of the United States. They knew 
full well that Mr. Pendleton had de- 
clared the effort to crush the rebellion 
impracticable and unconstitutional, and 
that, therefore, if the power they pro- 
posed to give him were ratified by his 
election, he could, and under his oath 
of office to support the Constitution, he 
must, disband our armies, terminate 
the war, and permit the dissolution of 
the Union to be consummated ; or he 



19 



might repeat his own words of 1861 : 
Let the seceding States depart in 
peace ; let them establish their gov- 
ernment and empire, and work out 
their destiny according to the wisdom 
which God has given them.' It is, 
then, a sufficient objection to the Chi- 
cago candidates that Mr. Pendleton, one 
of the candidates, inseparably connect- 
ed with General McClellan on the 
same electoral ticket, is, as we have 
seen, opposed to the war, and for all 
practical purposes as much a secession- 
ist and disunionist as Jefferson Davis. 
This being clear, if General McClellan 
is really for the war to save the Union, 
by crushing the rebellion, he must re- 
fuse to run on the same electoral ticket 
with Mr. Pendleton ; and if he does not, 
the people and history will assign to 
him the same position. He cannot 
lend his name to aid the election of 
Mr. Pendleton on the same ticket with 
himself, and profess devotion to the 
Union. 

There is yet another point on which 
I would say a word. It is this : From 
the proceedings of the Canada Confed- 
erates, and their Northern allies, and 
the outgoings of the Richmond press, 
I conclude that their last suggestion is 
this : two or more confederacies, North- 
ern, Southern, Middle, New England, 
Northwest, Mississippi, and Pacific. 
They are to be united by free trade be- 
tween them all, and by an alliance 
offensive and defensive. That is, when- 
ever any one of these confederacies go 
to war, we are to join them in the con- 
flict. Namely, if the Southern Confed- 
eracy wishes to conquer and annex 
Cuba or Porto Rico, or to conquer and 
extend slavery to Central America, and 
war follows, we are to join them in the 
war, and sustain them with our blood 
and treasure. If so, the temple of 
Janus will never be closed on our con- 
tinent, and war will be our normal con- 
dition — a war not declared by us, or 
in our own interest, but by the South, 
as a foreign government. Such an alli- 
ance is visionary, ruinous, and imprac- 



ticable. It is simply a scheme to secure 
Southern independence. 

Then, as to the free trade to be se- 
cured by treaty between the several 
confederacies. Recollect that each of 
these nations is to be foreign and inde- 
pendent, and to have its separati 
tics with foreign Powers. How long 
would such treaties and such an alli- 
ance last? Why, the flag of the 
South would scarcely -float over the 
mouth of the Chesapeake and Missis- 
sippi, before the conflict with us of 
views and measures would begin, 
nursed and promoted by foreign Pow- 
ers, where each of the new confedera- 
cies would have its separate ministers, 
representing distinct and discordant 
interests. When have such alliances or 
treaties lasted even for half a century? 
Where are all the leagues of antiquity 
or of modern Europe ? Where are all 
such leagues and treaties even of the 
last century? Where is our own alli- 
ance with France of 1778 ? Where all 
such alliances and treaties even of the 
first half of the present century I They 
are all extinguished. Experience proves 
— the voice of history proclaims — that 
treaties or alliances between indepen- 
dent Powers are always of short dura- 
tion, being soon swept before the gust 
of contending passions, or melted in 
the crucible of conflicting interests. 
Wbere is the celebrated alliance and 
treaty of 1814 and 1815 of Vienna, be- 
tween the great European Powers, es- 
tablishing FOREVER, by a congress, the 
balance of European power < Is there 
a single clause now in force } Where 
is the clause securing France to the 
Bourbons, and guaranteeing forever 
against the reign of any of the Bona- 
parte family? Where are the states 
whose independence was forever guar- 
anteed by those treaties ? Where are 
Parma and Modena and Tuscany \ 
Where is Lombardy, where the Ro- 
magna. Naples, and the Two Sici- 
lies ? Where are the duchies of Lauen- 
burg, Schleswig, and Holstein, and 
where the treaty of 1852 in regard to 



20 



them ? All, all have passed away, just 
as would our proposed treaties or 
alliances. The first war would sweep 
them out of existence. No, my coun- 
trymen ; as WasJ&igton, the father of 
his country, most truly told us in his 
Farewell Address: 'To the eflicacy 
and permanency of your Union, a Gov- 
ernment for the whole is indispensable. 
No alliance, however strict between the 
ports, can be an adequate substitute; 
they must inevitably experience the 
infractions and interruptions which all 
alliances, in all time, have experienced.' 
Washington thus foresaw and warned 
us against this most insidious proposi- 
tion to divide our country into separ- 
ate confederacies, no matter how strict 
the alliances between them might be ; 
and let us adopt his counsels. 

Is it not strange, while Italy and 
Germany seek, in Italian and German 
unity, relief from the ruin and oppres- 



sion of so many independent states and 
governments, and are each making ad- 
vances to that glorious consummation, 
that we are asked to adopt the reac- 
tionary policy, and separate glorious 
Union into distinct confederacies, soon 
to be followed by grinding taxation, 
by immense standing armies, and per- 
petual wars ? 

And now then, my countrymen, I 
bring this letter to a close, imploring 
you to give no vote which will subject 
the Union to the slightest peril. Come, 
then, my friends, of all parties, come, 
Republicans, and Whigs, and Demo- 
crats, and Irish and German and na- 
tive citizens, trampling under our feet 
all past issues, and all old party names 
and prejudices, and, standing on this 
broad basis of principle, let us vote, 
not for men or parties, but for the sal- 
vation and perpetuity of the Union. 

R J. Walker. 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

nun 





012 028 376 5 



